FEB 27,2012:TORONTO( MASSEY HALL)

Tour dates, set lists, show reviews
Message
Author
User avatar
Romeo
Posts: 2964
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: St. andrews

Re: FEB 27,2012:TORONTO( MASSEY HALL)

#21 Post by Romeo » Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:21 am

I don't think they need to do much.
Look how happy everyone was with a simple act of adding classic girl & would for you into a acoustic set. :noclue:

The busby berkeley extravaganza isn't so much necessary anymore

Hokahey
Site Admin
Posts: 5394
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:51 pm

Re: FEB 27,2012:TORONTO( MASSEY HALL)

#22 Post by Hokahey » Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:31 am

Romeo wrote:I don't think they need to do much.
Apparently they do considering no one has been "blown away." I guess my point was I'm not sure they could blow us away at this point, both because of their age and our bitterness.

User avatar
Romeo
Posts: 2964
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: St. andrews

Re: FEB 27,2012:TORONTO( MASSEY HALL)

#23 Post by Romeo » Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:41 am

at this point I doubt I will ever be "blown away" by Janes. But I carry low expectations :lol: I knew that 09 would shoot down anything there after. Perry's voice was pretty shot then. It wasn't going to be getting any better.

The closest I got to blown away in recent years was the Vegas show in 09. I wasn't blown away but they were so "on" that night, even Perry.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: FEB 27,2012:TORONTO( MASSEY HALL)

#24 Post by Hype » Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:42 am

http://arts.nationalpost.com/2012/02/28 ... o-toronto/
Speaking of Navarro, for a guy who spends so much time screwing around on reality television shows in his spare time, he is remarkably not-ridiculous on stage — a fact made even more impressive considering his insistence on wearing studded leather butt-huggers (he is 44 years old) and his inability to don a shirt for more than 10 minutes (he popped off his oppressive top, which began the evening unbuttoned, before the third song). Despite these ostensible deal-breakers, every live performance seems to serve as penance for, among other things, his two seasons as a judge on CBS’s Rock Star series. He preens, he poses, he marches shirtlessly and shows off a chiseled body trapped in time while pealing off distorted pentatonic scales, and yet, it’s mesmerizing: He’s earned every inch of the Rock God aura he exudes, and he embodies it so fully that he makes it impossible to hate what is, at face value, a grab-bag of such thoroughly detestable traits.

Balancing Navarro’s maddening coolness, though, is Farrell’s manic, vibrating energy, which, at least on stage, comes across as something like pure joy. During a break in the third song of the night, Just Because off 2001′s Strays, he took a moment to say hi the crowd, bouncing from side to side and waving and smiling in a way that, for many 52-year-olds, might have carried a whiff of affected childlike preciousness, but here came off as legitimate excitement. He’s also heartwarmingly filthy; about 95% of his stage banter revolved around crude non sequitur sex jokes. (“Can I f— you? … For all you know, I already am.” Cool, thanks!)
:lol: (The article was generally okay, but they get the year of Strays wrong there...)
Set list:

...
I Would For You
:yikes: :yikes: :yikes: :yikes: :yikes: :confused:

User avatar
LJF
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:37 pm
Location: jersey baby jersey

Re: FEB 27,2012:TORONTO( MASSEY HALL)

#25 Post by LJF » Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:46 am

hokahey wrote:
Romeo wrote:I don't think they need to do much.
Apparently they do considering no one has been "blown away." I guess my point was I'm not sure they could blow us away at this point, both because of their age and our bitterness.

I joined sonny's site a few weeks before it all went up in flames. But enough time to be called just about everything by six7six7, so I don't have the history with the band that most regulars on here do. I'm glad for that, because it seems you all have seen too much, but even for those of us who didn't experience that I agree that it would be hard for them to blow us away. This isn't the same band that I saw in Spring 91, they are much older and their attitudes are much different. When I go see them next Tuesday I'm not expecting them to blow me away, I'm looking to be entertained and come away glad I got to see my favorite band. Or at least a shadow of my favorite band.

Tyler Durden

Re: FEB 27,2012:TORONTO( MASSEY HALL)

#26 Post by Tyler Durden » Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:52 am

They could never blow me away now because of the corner they painted themselves into; they've only made two albums over the past 22 years...and I've heard the original band's work a MILLION times. It's only natural that hardcore fans are eventually going to feel a little unsatisfied. Don't get me wrong, I still had a great time (I just take it for what it is). They're never going to be a band like Pearl Jam--playing 3 hour sets with rarities, b-sides, numerous covers, wildly different setlist every night. Jane's made certain detrimental decisions during different points in their career and over the past 10 years, we have begun to see the results.

I had a blast at the show; but concert experiences are totally subjective. I was in good company, drinking free booze, leaning over Dave's monitor. It's just not 1990 anymore. The mythic danger is gone; it's now a good "show".

BTW, I chatted a little with some guy beside me before Jane's came on. He had never seen Jane's before...BUT he had seen Dave play with The Panic Channel when they opened for Supernova. :scared: This guy was telling me the best live band in the world is Motley Crue. :lolol:

User avatar
Larry B.
Posts: 7341
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:25 am
Location: Santiago

Re: FEB 27,2012:TORONTO( MASSEY HALL)

#27 Post by Larry B. » Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:35 am

The only thing that I think could blow us away is Perry performing like he should. That is, singing properly and not delivering cringe-worthy banter onstage.

He can't do that anymore. So they'll never blow us away.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: FEB 27,2012:TORONTO( MASSEY HALL)

#28 Post by Hype » Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:39 am

Larry B. wrote:The only thing that I think could blow us away is Perry performing like he should. That is, singing properly and not delivering cringe-worthy banter onstage.

He can't do that anymore. So they'll never blow us away.
Yes, but I think I've said a few times that it's just really obvious that as a band they should have worked on all the songs they still want to perform to make it so that his voice isn't blown out by the third song, and so that we don't to listen to that horrible screeching noise that is less banshee and more grandma.

Doing more stripped down versions of songs, not in a lounge-act way, and not in fucking D or C tuning, necessarily, but just rearranged, so there's more chance to be melodic in a good way than scream-singing, or attempting Bono-esque bullshit.

User avatar
Larry B.
Posts: 7341
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:25 am
Location: Santiago

Re: FEB 27,2012:TORONTO( MASSEY HALL)

#29 Post by Larry B. » Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:04 pm

Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Larry B. wrote:The only thing that I think could blow us away is Perry performing like he should. That is, singing properly and not delivering cringe-worthy banter onstage.

He can't do that anymore. So they'll never blow us away.
Yes, but I think I've said a few times that it's just really obvious that as a band they should have worked on all the songs they still want to perform to make it so that his voice isn't blown out by the third song, and so that we don't to listen to that horrible screeching noise that is less banshee and more grandma.

Doing more stripped down versions of songs, not in a lounge-act way, and not in fucking D or C tuning, necessarily, but just rearranged, so there's more chance to be melodic in a good way than scream-singing, or attempting Bono-esque bullshit.
:nod:

User avatar
Romeo
Posts: 2964
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: St. andrews

Re: FEB 27,2012:TORONTO( MASSEY HALL)

#30 Post by Romeo » Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:27 pm

Tyler Durden wrote:BTW, I chatted a little with some guy beside me before Jane's came on. He had never seen Jane's before...BUT he had seen Dave play with The Panic Channel when they opened for Supernova. :scared: This guy was telling me the best live band in the world is Motley Crue. :lolol:
and there you go....

Because we all know "girls girls girls" is a classic! :lol:

Hokahey
Site Admin
Posts: 5394
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:51 pm

Re: FEB 27,2012:TORONTO( MASSEY HALL)

#31 Post by Hokahey » Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:13 pm

I wish they'd add "Splash" to the set list. I think, despite it being relatively low tempo, it would fit the set well. Underground is a great opener and fits well. IF fit well. Despite being an album fav, Twisted really falls flat live and hurts the show's momentum.

User avatar
JOEinPHX
Posts: 6638
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:55 pm
Location: The Sea

Re: FEB 27,2012:TORONTO( MASSEY HALL)

#32 Post by JOEinPHX » Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:00 pm

http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/Artists/J/Jan ... 34581.html
But the distractions were many, including nonsensical talk from a potty-mouthed Farrell, who swigged from a bottle of red wine - “tonight we all get circumcisions!”
:confused: :hs: :no:

User avatar
JOEinPHX
Posts: 6638
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:55 pm
Location: The Sea

Re: FEB 27,2012:TORONTO( MASSEY HALL)

#33 Post by JOEinPHX » Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:05 pm

LJF wrote:
hokahey wrote:
Romeo wrote:I don't think they need to do much.
Apparently they do considering no one has been "blown away." I guess my point was I'm not sure they could blow us away at this point, both because of their age and our bitterness.

I joined sonny's site a few weeks before it all went up in flames. But enough time to be called just about everything by six7six7,
1. What stupid thing(s) did you say to deserve it?
2. What stupid thing(s) did I say to you in reply? I don't remember you.

esqfool
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 6:43 pm

Re: FEB 27,2012:TORONTO( MASSEY HALL)

#34 Post by esqfool » Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:16 pm

Artemis you hit on what I felt at the show. The sound was extremely muddy. Oh well, the sound guy seemed more preoccupied with the Lakers score than the sound, oh and his Lakers Hawaiian shirt, and Lakers satin jacket.

User avatar
Artemis
Posts: 10344
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: FEB 27,2012:TORONTO( MASSEY HALL)

#35 Post by Artemis » Tue Feb 28, 2012 6:33 pm

[quote="farrellgirl99"]i think bman might have had the right idea by avoiding everyone on this site until the show :lol:

im not saying i dont believe you guys, but it's disheartening to go in knowing it's not working so well.[/quote

like others have said, your concert experience is truly your own. please don't feel disheartened.

i have been to MANY shows over the years, so it takes a lot to wow me. the show was far from horrible, it just didn't knock my support hose off.


here is one more review i found:

http://exclaim.ca/Reviews/Concerts/jane ... ebruary_27







User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: FEB 27,2012:TORONTO( MASSEY HALL)

#36 Post by Hype » Tue Feb 28, 2012 6:48 pm

Screechy Classic Girl eeeeew. :cona: :jasper:

User avatar
farrellgirl99
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:20 pm
Location: Queens

Re: FEB 27,2012:TORONTO( MASSEY HALL)

#37 Post by farrellgirl99 » Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:41 pm

I'm still looking forward to the show Sunday. At Irving I had a marvelous time, but because I was front row and so excited to be so close to them, the whole show is a wonderful blur.

So I'm actually excited to be going to the show with seats where I can see everything without fear of being crushed and just enjoy it in a totally different way.

User avatar
Artemis
Posts: 10344
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: FEB 27,2012:TORONTO( MASSEY HALL)

#38 Post by Artemis » Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:44 pm

Another review from The Globe and Mail...



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/art ... le2352605/
It was sex, red wine and rock ’n’ roll, and I don’t need to know what went on backstage. On stage it was spectacle – loud, lewd spectacle – from Jane’s Addiction and Perry Farrell, that prowling, high-whiney-voiced showman all in black. “Tonight we all get circumcisions,” he said at one point. And indeed, that was just the tip of things.( :hehe: )

Did we see what we thought we saw, even before the show began? A nonchalant roadie leading camera-clutching female fans across the stage, linked together by a chain? I think so.

When the lights went down – not all the lights; the seriously red ones stayed on – the house speakers were booming epic Pink Floyd music: “Welcome my son, welcome to the machine. Where have you been? It's all right, we know where you've been.”

Actually, we didn’t know where these guys had been. The best we could hope for is that they had washed their hands with soap before they got here.

The stage show in support of the on-again/off-again alt-rock kingpins’ first album of new material in eight years began with a pair of ladies perched on high-hanging swings, wearing impractically long white gowns that billowed 10 feet or so below them. They swung to the first track off last year’s The Great Escape Artist, which was Underground, a thick-riffed rocker with all hands – guitarist Dave Navarro, drummer Stephen Perkins and bassist Chris Chaney – on deck.

Mountain Song was unstoppable, muscular guitar rock. A gigantic sculpture of two nude women towered in the background.

Navarro, the pretty one in leather pants, had his shirt off for 2003’s Just Because, a Grammy-winning single that sounded like a tougher Achtung Baby-era U2. I recall that the original video for Just Because featured a buff-looking Navarro; looks like the tattooed dude kept up his health-club membership.

The audience, made up of folks easily old enough to have attended the first Farrell-founded Lollapalooza festival in 1991, were on their feet for all of the concert’s ecstatic, electric hour-and-a-half. Clearly they knew the words to 1990’s Been Caught Stealing, an ode to kleptomania that’s put on some weight over the years, and, in doing so, lost some of its funk.

There’s much sexual oomph to what Jane’s Addiction does – in its look, in its lean and upbeat locomotion, in its manly guitar solos, in its lascivious energy and in its tight, grimy rhythms. On Ted, Just Admit It…, which picked up speed as it went, Farrell sang about images that were no longer shocking and about how “sex is violent,” as vintage S&M porn footage flickered on a pair of screens above him.

Bondage-happy burlesque girls in black leather on a bench up high happened. There was a guy in a rooster outfit, and a man all in white who hung himself. A mid-set slowdown happened when the band reconfigured in front of a giant stuffed trophy bear and a tasselled lamp.

On the acoustic-strummed Jane Says, the time-keeping Perkins manned the steel drum. Farrell kept slugging his Bordeaux straight from the bottle.

The night ended with a two-tune encore: Words Right Out of My Mouth, a fast-chugging Slash-y new one, and Ocean Size, from the band’s 1988 debut Nothing’s Shocking. It’s a song about large waves which crash again and again against the shore, seemingly to no effect. “I only care about what you think,” said Farrell, a pleaser, to his fans. “And that’s why I’m miserable.”

Despondent, this generous entertainer? Surely Farrell must now by know that in his own way he moves mountains. But if he can’t see the changes, rest assured, others do.

User avatar
JOEinPHX
Posts: 6638
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:55 pm
Location: The Sea

Re: FEB 27,2012:TORONTO( MASSEY HALL)

#39 Post by JOEinPHX » Tue Feb 28, 2012 9:20 pm

Artemis wrote:Another review from The Globe and Mail...



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/art ... le2352605/
“I only care about what you think,” said Farrell, a pleaser, to his fans. “And that’s why I’m miserable.”
Did we finally get to him? :lol:

User avatar
Mescal
Posts: 2394
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 7:23 am

Re: FEB 27,2012:TORONTO( MASSEY HALL)

#40 Post by Mescal » Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:21 pm

I'm starting to like Underground.

Sounds pretty good live.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: FEB 27,2012:TORONTO( MASSEY HALL)

#41 Post by Hype » Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:19 am

I love the Globe...
The audience, made up of folks easily old enough to have attended the first Farrell-founded Lollapalooza festival in 1991, were on their feet for all of the concert’s ecstatic, electric hour-and-a-half. Clearly they knew the words to 1990’s Been Caught Stealing, an ode to kleptomania that’s put on some weight over the years, and, in doing so, lost some of its funk.
... Just like the fans! :lol:

Hokahey
Site Admin
Posts: 5394
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:51 pm

Re: FEB 27,2012:TORONTO( MASSEY HALL)

#42 Post by Hokahey » Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:24 am

Mescal wrote:I'm starting to like Underground.

Sounds pretty good live.

I was really happy with how it fit in with the rest of the set. Didn't seem out of place. I remember thinking the same about True Nature back in 2003. Both songs come across well live.

tcrock
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 7:54 am

Re: FEB 27,2012:TORONTO( MASSEY HALL)

#43 Post by tcrock » Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:34 am

farrellgirl99 wrote:I'm still looking forward to the show Sunday. At Irving I had a marvelous time, but because I was front row and so excited to be so close to them, the whole show is a wonderful blur.

So I'm actually excited to be going to the show with seats where I can see everything without fear of being crushed and just enjoy it in a totally different way.

wait, the Paramount has seats?

I might have 2 extras if anyone is interested, my work day on monday is shaping up to be a disaster (being a responsible adults sucks), so a Sunday night show might not be a great idea, still not sure. But pm me if interested

User avatar
Romeo
Posts: 2964
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: St. andrews

Re: FEB 27,2012:TORONTO( MASSEY HALL)

#44 Post by Romeo » Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:53 am

yea, Paramount is part pit, part seats

Image

User avatar
Artemis
Posts: 10344
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: FEB 27,2012:TORONTO( MASSEY HALL)

#45 Post by Artemis » Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:51 am

One more review from the Toronto Star. I think this will conclude the T.O. reviews.

The show was actually Monday night...I should send an email to make a correction.

http://www.toronto.com/blog/post/714910 ... -the-highs

It seems like Jane’s is addicted to the past.
On Tuesday night, from the moment stagehands unveiled the twin gigantic nude female statues in a mirror pose; lifted the two comely dancers on swings high above the Massey Hall stage, and the birdman-like creature who swayed beneath one of them, turned on the three video screens and started the dazzling array of spotlights, you knew you were in for a good 70-minutes of Jane’s Addiction escapism.
But whether there were any real surprises for the faithful who have seen the L.A. band in full regalia on previous occasions is another matter altogether.
There certainly was the security of knowing what you’re getting, and singer Perry Farrell and the crew lived up to the billing, delivering occasional moments of spontaneity in a hit-and-miss affair that packed a powerful, potent punch when it clicked, and fell begrudgingly flat when it didn’t.
There’s no denying that the quirky Farrell is a fascinating frontman: charismatic and unpredictable - someone who will explode into a leap when you’re least expecting it, or suddenly break out into a weird march or dance that will be totally out of step from the searing alternative rock that’s swirling around him, only to recover and sing on cue without missing a beat.
From the opening strains of “Underground,” taken from the band’s latest album The Great Escape Artist, you couldn’t take your eyes off him, as he danced madly around the stage, blowing air kisses to the crowd, and repeatedly serenaded front-row occupants throughout the evening, even allowing one frisky woman to grope his legs as he stopped to survey the audience.
But Farrell’s only one contributor to Jane’s Addiction, and the remaining band members made a strong case for how much mood, melody and general atmospherics is generated solely by guitarist Dave Navarro.
And he could only succeed with the solid support demonstrated by drummer Stephen Perkins and bass-player-du-jour Chris Chaney.
There were a few sublime moments where Navarro executed mesmerizing solos that heightened the actual musicality of the show, especially during “Three Days” or “Twisted Tales,” before those numbers curtly ended and Jane’s Addiction moved onto the next.
But there were low points, especially during the intimate “acoustic” set of “Classic Girl” and “Jane Says,” the monotonous two-chord signature riff that’s one of the more boring songs in the JA canon.
Listening to the band reach into Nothing’s Shocking and Ritual De Lo Habitual is one thing, but using many of the same visual devices from previous tours led to an unfortunate sense of déjà vu.
It was one old hat Jane’s Addiction didn’t need to wear.

Post Reply